QIGONG. Qi means energy and it isn't a metaphor.

Lmao.
You know I always find it really funny when combat sport people rip on chi when they use it all the time.

Chi is simply the practical understanding of all the little nuances that go into a human body performing at it's most efficient.

Let's look at boxing, for example. To an uneducated mind, boxing is just aggressive punching. If you're good at swinging your arms wildly, you can box.

The trained boxer reads this assumption and laughs.. because they know there are nuances: all the little details and variables that factor into making all your punches as devastating as possible, and those of your opponents as negligible.

When you throw a strike, you relax and then tighten at the moment of impact in order to combine your strength with momentum. You "hiss" when you attack to encourage explosive, expanding force.. and when you take a hit, you "hiss" to tighten your abdomen and turn your body's muscles into a denser target. When you move, you make the tiniest, imperceptive change in angles.. just enough to render yourself untouchable for a brief few moments.

It's all chi. It's just not the "Yellow Bamboo" kind of "chi."

 

By sports guys do you mean the one where spent a decade in ninjitsu arts (deadpool) or the one who did 15years or so in Chinese arts including various forms of neigong? Just curious?

The relative merits or otherwise of chi for sports performance isn't what's being discussed here it's something entirely different.

 

I mean the people who spend all their time training in modern combat sports and think they know a goddamn thing.

The realistic merits of chi are absolutely what's being discussed here.

 

And the OP has already admitted his original statement on chi and cancer was misleading, therefore it was unrealistic.

 

Respectfully..
.. Mr. Pool..
(Masked profanity removed)

 

Well with a rebuttal like that, I can see you really enjoying your time on the rest of the internet, perhaps the YouTube comments section would suit your debate style better?

 

I mean.. do you have an original thought?
"OP said this" isn't a point.

I can say "this person said something" all I want.. and I'd want to kick my own (bootay) each time I do.

 

That's not chi and calling it chi just adds a layer of obfuscation.
Use words like body mechanics, timing, experience, kinetic chain, etc. Use words that actually define something.
There are some terms in martial arts that I think express something in their native tongue better, or more succinctly, than a translation. Or adds a nuance that is helpful. Hubud Lubud is one I think. The term Kuzushi perhaps? I think Sempai/Kohai is a good way to look at student relarionships.
Chi however, because it's so loaded with unhelpful baggage and nonsense, isn't one of those terms and is often used as a stand-in when more descriptive language or terms would be better.

 

It is chi. It is objectively chi. It's just not the popular conception. That's part of why discussions like this exist, that being to clear up semantics and destroy confusion.

Of course I use the terminology you describe when speaking about martial arts in a less specific context. However here we are talking specifically about chi as a concept.. so this is where we're at.

 

If the OP has retracted his claim about real world effectiveness of Chi, then you need to make a new exact claim, so that it can be debated, and potentially debunked or proven true, otherwise your just arguing generalities which isn't a productive use of any of our time.

 

Let's clear up the semantics then, objectiveness.

How do you think we can measure Chi in an objective way?

"
ob·jec·tive
(əb-jĕk′tĭv)
adj.
1.
a. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real: objective reality.
b. Based on observable phenomena; empirical: objective facts.
2. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
3. Medicine Relating to or being an indicator of disease, such as a physical sign, laboratory test, or x-ray, that can be observed or verified by someone other than the person being evaluated.

"

objectiveness

 

For all I know and care, the OP uses the bathroom by sticking his head down the toilet and peeing upwards.

It wouldn't change a thing about what I'm saying.

 

What is your exact claim?

 

By how good they are at efficient and effective control of their bodies. Maximum result with little effort.

 

And how do you clearly measure that?

 

That what the OP says doesn't mean anything because I'm telling you what chi is now.

 

Calling "something" chi is like calling something "athletics" or "karate". It's a label used so freely, and to so many different things, it doesn't tell you anything and needs so many caveats to get down to what you are actually describing you might as well just get straight onto talking about the actual thing.

If it's timing, say timing. If it's good body mechanics say that. Proprioception, co-ordination, etc. There are just simply better terms to use.

 

However you would measure that when you're not getting triggered by a controversial word.

Come on, man. If the word "chi" was replaced here with "body mechanics," this conversation wouldn't even be happening. You're just hung up on it because everyone else uses it wrong and you think that means anything.

 

If its objective, it should be known to a wide amount of people, are you saying the OP doesn't know what he's talking about?

And again, how to you accurately measure, effective control of their bodies? Gymnastic people have excellent control of their body, are they chi masters too? If so why is chi kung training so different then gymnastics training is?